Right.  So which policy do you think will work?

Rom Walton wrote:
> The problem with the current policy is that it can be up to 9 seconds
> after somebody starts a movie before BOINC will suspend.
> 
> That'll be 9 seconds of glitches for both audio and video in the worst
> case scenario.  For the media center experience, it is easier to reboot
> the computer than to go get the keyboard and mouse to see what is going
> on. I don't run BOINC on the media center since it already has enough
> going on, however I do rebooted the media center when it glitches for
> more than 2 or 3 seconds.
> 
> ----- Rom
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Anderson [mailto:[email protected]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 1:05 PM
> To: Rom Walton
> Cc: Charlie Fenton; BOINC Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: API suggestion to help in user retention
> 
> 
> Rom Walton wrote:
>> It seems to me that it would be better to monitor this once a second
> and
>> then use a decaying average to prevent needlessly starting and
> stopping
>> processes for apps that jump around the user defined threshold.
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "needless".
> If the load average is close to threshold,
> BOINC should stop until it's well below threshold.
> 
> The current policy is:
> every 10 seconds, look at CPU usage over the last 10 sec.
> If it's greater than 25%, suspend BOINC; otherwise, resume BOINC.
> 
> Suppose there's some activity that uses 100% of the CPU
> for 1 second, every 5 seconds.
> The current mechanism won't trigger.
> 
> a) We could make it trigger by sampling every 1 sec.
> Then, on average, BOINC would suspend itself halfway
> through every spike.
> 
> b) Or we could be more aggressive: sample every 1 sec,
> and if CPU load is above 25%, suspend BOINC for the next 10 sec.
> This would keep BOINC suspended indefinitely while
> that activity is going on.
> 
> We need to do some experimentation with real apps
> (e.g. video playback, commercial-removing software)
> to decide whether to use a) or b), and what the parameters should be.
> Maybe what we should do is provide detailed controls via cc_config.xml,
> and let people experiment.
> 
> -- David

_______________________________________________
boinc_dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ssl.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/boinc_dev
To unsubscribe, visit the above URL and
(near bottom of page) enter your email address.

Reply via email to